Delhi

East Delhi

CC/57/2013

PREM PRAKESH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

UREKHA FORBES. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                

                                                                                                 

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.          57/2013

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                24/01/2013

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on               08/01/2018

                                                                                                  Date of Order                        09/01/2018  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr Prem Prakash Sharma, adult 

S/o- Sh Om Prakash Sharma

R/o – C 226, 2^nd Floor,

Jhilmil Colony,  Delhi 110095………………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

1-The Ureka Forbes Ltd.

Cor. Office – B1/B2, 701, 7th Floor

Marathan Nextgen, Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013

 

2-The Neeti Enterprises

Autho. Service Centre- Ureka Forbes Ltd,

A-35, 3^rd Floor, Parwana Road

Radhey Shyam Parl Extn., Delhi 110051………………………………  Opponents

 

 

Quorum  -     Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant took two years annual maintenance service contract from OP2/ Neeti Enterprises from 29/09/2010 to 28/09/2012 after paying a sum of Rs 1950/-(Ex. CW1/1). It was stated that from 31/08/2012, the said Aqua Guard started giving unhealthy water for which complainant made several complaints to OP1 and OP2, but there was no response from OPs. This resulted serious illness of his younger daughter and was admitted at Pushpanjali Crossley hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad and remained admitted from 04/10/2012 to 08/10/2012 and was diagnosed as a case of Acute Gastritis with Dehydration (Ex CW1/2). Thereafter complainant purchased a new water purifier for a sum of Rs 3150/- with one year warranty (ExCW1/3). Due to deficiency in service of OP2, filed this complaint and claimed refund of service contract charges Rs 1950/-with 24%, treatment cost Rs 50,000/-,cost of another water purifier a sum of Rs 40,000/-with physical and mental harassment Rs 50,000/-caused to the complainant along with litigation fee Rs 15,000/-.

OP2 filed written statement on behalf of OP1 also and denied all the allegations against them as false and incorrect. Though it was admitted that OP2 had given annual maintenance contract to complainant for two years from 29/09/2010 to 28/09/2012 and during the contract, OP 2 had provided services as per warranty contract. It was also submitted that the said contract of two years expired from 29/09/2012 onward and complainant had not extended AMC any further.  

OP1 had stopped contract of providing contract services with OP2 from 12/09/2011 still all the required services were provided to their customers without failure. It was also stated that OP2 had nothing to do with the second water purifier purchased by complainant on 03/10/2012 and allegations of getting his daughter ill due to consumption of  impure water from their aqua guard was incorrect and without any evidence as complainant had purchased another water purifier before getting his daughter ill. So this allegation was intentionally put on OP2 to gain wrongfully from this Forum.  Hence, it was prayed to dismiss this complaint with cost.  

 

Complainant submitted his rejoinder where he denied all the replies submitted by OP2 and stated that there was deficiency in services of OP2 under warranty tenure. He had also filed evidences through affidavit where he affirmed himself on oath that all the contents of his complaints were correct and true as annexed here as evidences.

 

OP2 submitted their evidences on affidavit through Mrs Niti Srivastava, w/o Sh Anupam Srivastava, as proprietor of the shop and affirmed that all their replies in written statements were correct and there was no deficiency in their services to complainant as per the maintenance contract and no evidence from complainant to prove that the services of OP2 were deficient. Hence, the written statement be accepted and complaint may be dismissed with cost.  

Complainant submitted his written arguments, but never put his appearance from 24/08/2015 till the date of arguments despite of serving notices. File perused and order was reserved.

 

After scrutinizing all the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that complainant had taken two years maintenance contract from OP2 on behalf of OP1 from 28/09/2010 to 28/09/2012 and there was no evidence that complainant had further extended his maintenance contract with OP2 or paid any services thereafter. Rather complainant had purchased another water purifier on 03/10/2012. So, OP2 could not be said deficient in their services under warranty tenure. Hence, neither OP1 nor OP2 had any role towards contract and alleged damages after the expiry of AMC. 

It was also seen that complainant had purchased new water purifier on 03/10/2012 and his daughter felt ill on 04/10/2012 for Acute Gastritis with Dehydration. This diagnosis is not proximate to OP2 services. Rather it may be for some other cause, but without any evidence of treatment details, lab reports or hospital bill, it could not be said that OP2 was responsible for such ailment in absence of contract.  

Thus complainant has failed to prove deficiency in services of OP2 by even a single evidence rather complainant also failed to defend his own case properly since long. So, there is no merit in this complaint and deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any order to cost.  

 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under Section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                                 Mrs –Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                                 

                                                       

                                              Shri Sukhdev Singh  President